What Non Lethal Weapons Can Compete with Lethal Weapons?

Shoot me your address and I'll send you a tin foil hat. Actually, it will be aluminum foil.

I'll throw one in for the little woman, too!

If there is not a non-lethal weapon that can compete offensively and defensively with lethal small arms, ought not one be developed?

and

Do we or don't we have the technology to win a firefight in which the enemy is as good as killed, but not killed?

Yes, Biological

"VI. Subversion is the cheapest path to victory. So cheap, in fact, as compared with the costs and risks of battle, that it must always be attempted, even with the most seemingly irreconcilable enemies."

Edward Luttwak, Take Me Back to Constantinople (Foreign Policy, 11/23/09).

Hi Transcendian,

Truly sorry about that! The Al hat was intended for the psycho guest who posted the LLLLoooooNNNNNggggeeeessssttttt post I've ever seen, in reply to your original post.

It's gone now. I snitched him out. Did anyone else see that rant?

Anyway, I was so pi**ed I may have sent it to the wrong slot.

No offense, for sure.

In addition to p911's biological...don't forget about "chemical" VX and GB kill, but HD (mustard) in a diluted form can be a blistering agent. It can make one good as dead but not dead, unless they blister too much then they die. Many survived the mustard sprays of wars passed, many didn't.

How about the sonic guns?

I suppose what I'm looking for would create happier casualties.

Atomized LSD and a Pink Floyd Laser Light Show?

"..a non-lethal weapon that can compete offensively and defensively with lethal small arms"

I try to imagine the situation, where a policeman or soldier would be using the non-lethal weapon to deal with criminals or combatants using lethal small arms....

My feeling is, in general, the person who takes up lethal small arms with intention of breaking the peace and harming others, should expect to be met with an equivalent lethal force.

There is no need for a non-lethal weapon in this situation, UNLESS its performance is superior to lethal small arms and assures a better outcome. Maybe you want to question the criminal(s) so capture is a bonus. Or sometimes it's not a criminal, just someone who needs to be brought to their senses, and not harmed. For those, I'd recommend a water pistol.

In a situation where small arms are in play and lethal weapons are already justified, anything less lethal should be acceptable if there's a strategic reason for using it.

What about the tranquilizer gun they use on animals? It's more humane than a taser. (And the darts on a string thing will never compete with guns, anyway). Why are tranq darts not part of the arsenal that police have to choose from?

In the Pacific during WWII, few prisoners were taken. The fight was with a Nation State. It was ended when the Atom Bomb, a Weapon of Mass Destruction was used.

Now we are back to complexities. Showing how many we can kill at once is not helpful.

Small arms and small bombs rule.

I imagine being able to shoot down enemies with something that kills them temporarily as fast as a bullet tearing lump of metal out of an M16, or AK47 does, and then being able to collect all as prisoners.

This would be soft and hard power at the same time, and a weapon that in the hands of fighters for human rights, right scary to those intent on dying.

Didn't they have such a thing on Star Trek? That Phaser Thingy. How'd that work? How come there wasn't a rifle edition that would do 300 yards?

Star Trek? Oh you're lookin for the paralyzing light thing. That's biotech... I can't imagine this doing 300 yards though...

"..scary to those intent on dying." Sometimes I think about those suicide bombers and what a puzzle it is. If the startrek thing could stop those people before they explode themselves, not just to stop the harm to others, but so we could figure out, how is it that people would allow themselves to be turned into a disposable weapon?? What is done to them...

I thought about putting it in BioTech, but rejected that as narrowing the Thingy.

Yes, well, most anything that would be considered a fancy bio tech weapon, would be something that acts on a very tiny scale - meaning that it involves manipulating the target in a lab (like the GMO worms for the stun-ray), or implanting a weapon in advance of the combat.. it's more of a "covert-terrorist-invasion" thing than a practical field weapon for the usual military or enforcement situations.

A wireless neural device projectile is probably not impossible if it's in the right jacket, but for specific applications (like, complete immobilization, physical disability, or knockout) I think you would need precise targeting that's impossible at 300 yards. The gear is more suited to hypodermic injection distance, for the right placement to cause serious disability or a blackout with electrical stimuli alone, although of course there are no power constraints other than the power of the transmitter in your hands. Still I think, unless the device is precisely on a specific target, higher power would not be expected to produce a knockout.

If you forget about precise targeting, a neural device shot anywhere in the body, just to produce sensations of electric shock or pain, would not be a reliable way to immobilize the enemy IMHO. You might be able to use it to prevent most targets from getting closer to the transmitter or from entering a zone in which the signal is much stronger, but the bottom line is, behavior is unpredictable in response to pain. A surprising amount of things can be done when you are in pain. And of course, the enemy that survives it will hate you for life

For knockout control in a projectile, you're pretty well down to a drug delivery dart. The higher tech versions, MEMS microdrug delivery, is again all about precise targeting of small structures, and would probably not deliver strategic value for cost over a conventional drug dart in the less precise targeting world of projectiles at 300 yds. The advantage, other than precision targeting, would be to allow the drug delivery to be activated at a precise moment other than the moment of impact, that's all. Or a multi drug sequence. Again, I think the conventional dart is more likely for your application. The question is, what tranq would do the trick: rapid, complete immobilization. (I admit I know little or nothing about these drugs, but I've seen video of bears going down and whatever they're using, it's pretty fast.) Not so glamorous as a stun-ray , but....

How about nanotech... make little bots that can monitor vitals and administer an appropriate dose of sedative that could be injected via dart gun... The problem with conventional tranqs is the inability to accurately control dosage leading to either not enough tranq to stop the 300lb PCP junky, or too much not to kill the little old lady that got caught in the crossfire...

Anyway The Great Thingy would stop people for a fair amount of time in the same time that a lethal weapon does.

I've got my American Classic BB Pistol on the desk now.

Combining that with all known ballistics and narcotics, etcetera, can I make a shut up, stop and fall down gun?

A 50 cal will kill a long way away. Hits at a mile I think. What about a gun that knocked people out to dreamland?

Quiet and non lethal.

A machine gun type of thing might be really light with needle spinning 16 mm drug coated spikes.

There is no really competitive nonlethal weaponry now is there?

Nothing I know of will work both offensively and defensively on the battlefield.

Say I think I have learned something and what I have learned is that taking prisoners is better than killing.

Say I think I don't have a gun that works for this tactic dictated by the strategy of winning hearts and minds, which does not happen when murder is the method.

Gimme a Phaser.

I won't tell anybody. I promise I'll keep it all under wraps.

I imagine that some suicide bombers (as with any suicide) must feel that the life they have and the options open to them aren't worth having. Throw in a little "heaven sauce" and there you go.

Some of the bombers may be suffering from a severe shock that has paralysed their will. I read a book a few years ago (unfortunately can't remember title or author) that described how zombies were created in Haiti. First the victim was abducted, blindfolded, bound and given some kind of depressant drug that slowed the metabolism so that the victim could be buried alive for 24 hrs and survive on that amount of oxygen. Then the victim would be unearthed, still blindfolded, and beaten to within an inch of whatever life they had left. The effect was similar to that of giving someone a lobotomy. The targets were typically women to control "wayward behavior". It brings to mind the recent video of the Taliban father-in-law dragging his 17 yr old "daughter" out into the street to be beaten by a gang of men. This is also similar to the tactics used worldwide to "recruit" child soldiers.

I guess brain-washing is a non-lethal weapon. I wonder how the word "humane" was ever derived from the word "human".

The Pacific Theater during WWII is a bad example.

The Japanese viewed surrender as disgraceful and they themselves refused to retreat or surrender.

The Atom Bomb was a necessity because we were preparing to invade the Japanese mainland and the Japanese were going to fight to the last man, woman and child.

As a result the casualty rate would have been much higher then the casualties caused from the dropping of the two atom bombs.

It would be impractical to fight a war and do nothing but take all the enemies as POW's. The costs would be prohibitive supporting those POW's and they would end up starving to death.

Furthermore, war is a means of population control. It has to happen once in awhile or we'll soon run out of farmlands and food production.

I understand the value of being able to subdue someone without killing them. Not for the person subjected to the business end of the gun, but for the person pulling the trigger has to deal with trauma just for killing someone. Police have to go through a counseling session to talk out the stress of killing someone in the line of duty. All rescue personnel have the same counseling sessions when they've been on an accident scene where someone has died. Otherwise it builds up and sometimes might eventually lead to violent outbursts on loved ones.

It would be nice if we could just all get along but we populate too fast and I'd rather get shot then to die from some disease.

There is a lot of interesting commentary related to this topic on this thread about Tazers... To save you some time sifting through the entire thread... in response to your question concerning tranqs... see my post #28

Tear gas, stun grenades, sting grenades, TASERs, water cannons, ...

For tear gas and grenades, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grenade

I read about sonic cannons for crowd control, too.

Cheers!

DZ

I saw a Myth Busters episode when they tried to produce a "brown note," but they never found it.

I saw that one, I'm not surprised they failed to find it... they're idiots... especially since they added the geek squad... I guess that's what happens when you get a couple special effects guys together and tell them they're doing science... This show is BUSTED...

They may not be able to fight at first but after awhile your body will adjust to the sound and let the fighting begin.

No, the body will not adjust when the intensity level is specifically created to incapacitate or debilitate.

In other words if the combatant didn't get the point the audio can hurt them or be fatal.

I don't know the actual physics but I do know that the human body is very adaptable to it's surrounding environment. A sound wave would be an artificial change to our environment.

I would think that after enough exposure, our bodies would eventually develop a tolerance to it, much like to motion, such as sea sickness or pressure or living next to an active railroad track, or to temperature.

And just like to chemical, radiological and bio warfare, there are befensive barriers against them and it would be just a matter of time that defensive barriers would be developed to defend against nausiating sound waves.

I thought the topic were anti-personnel related, a person that can't stand, can't focus, can't control the bowel and whose body can't control the diaphragm isn't a threat.

I understand that.

If we develop such a weapon, the enemy will find out and start research and training to defend against it and be able to function under those conditions. Once it's used the secret is out. Those sound waves can be read and then duplicated.

The best solution actually is a combination of education & economic development. Leading an affluent life when they once were poor would make most people think twice about runing their own futures, while education should be directed to show the hypocrisy & true nature of the Taleban & Al Qaeda e.g. Islam preaches respect & equality for all, and yet they bomb girls' schools to deny them an education, and torture women for doing nothing more than wearing make-up, thus denying them the right to lead their own lives.

Please quote the exact passage from which this statement is born "preaches respect & equality for all". I must have missed it in my reading.

Read the Koran

Good one. I thought of telling him the same thing, but then I realized that this cowardly son-of-a-bitch was probably trying to stir up trouble again, just like how he did on an idiotic thread about the weight of water, so I decided against dignifying his moronic comment with a rational reply.

I always thought that most military weapons were designed to maim rather than to kill. The idea is that maimed/incapacitated casualties will cost the enemy manpower as to retrieve and keep them alive. As such it "kills" two birds with one stone (please forgive the pun). I am afraid however that with your question you could open up a huge can of worms that could get us talking about economics rather than peacekeeping and personally I would not like to go there (or did I just create my own monster by writing that).

Dutchy

Low frequency/standing wave emission can incapacitate human and animals in a very controlled focus or orientation at close quarter or out about twenty miles.

bwire: What can we say about the size and power of the transmitter capable of such a feat? If I remember right from what I've read, we're talking 'big conspicuous honker' here - maybe mobility issues? I'm thinking it would be a conspicuous (and maybe slow moving or fixed) target, in the context of a military or police application. The generators alone and the fuel to power it would be a heavy load to move.

Not sure if I have the considerations right, but I know some research was done on this, and it never saw military action....

I seem to recall there was also a constraint, that you have to shield your own troops from an emission of this type and that may be difficult to do, or it may contribute to the bulkiness and mobility constraints in the design.

Did I miss something? I am curious and would like to know about "controlled focus or orientation" and how that is achieved in the design you're talking about for a low frequency weapon.

Isn't this the LRAD system used against the Whale Wars people starting in Episode 5? http://animal.discovery.com/tv/whale-wars/map/ I haven't watched the episodes yet. I just saw the commercials for it.

There are issues of focus regarding low frequency's as they tend to go all over though a focus similar to that utilized in cellular signal radiation is possible and a pulse is effective reducing the mobility design constraints.

This isn't like any big honker or a bass-canon

Interesting.

Of course you can always get low frequency effects by using a pair of signals just the the notch apart. So I have read. That would get around the constraints involved for a low frequency broadcast per se.

They do all kinds of stuff in the band medical calls "low ultrasound" , that's around 10 to 30 khz or so. But remote, I don't know. They use pairs of signals to cause cellular cavitation, basically crushing up cancer cells or the like with sound. Very targeted and near field.

In surgical applications, sine waves cut and square waves burn. Might be important to know, in a radio weapons context.

Yes in the 18Hz and less ranges audio signals cause significant physical discomfort but the tie breaker is the detrimental effects upon structural load bearing materials when exposed to intense low frequency oscillation within specific frequency ranges and the effect is realized very quickly.

Jericho.

After Jerusalem, Jericho is the most excavated site in Israel. Charles Warren in 1868 sank several shafts but concluded that nothing was to be found (he missed the Neolithic tower by a meter!). Germans Sellin and Watzinger excavated 1907-13, Garstang 1930-36 and Kenyon 1952-58. An Italian-Palestinian team excavated for several years beginning in 1997.

Good reasons to question both its dating to the *8th millennium B.C. and its function as a defensive fortification.

*Pre Adamic

It'd be interesting to experiment with a bas canon in the caves of a certain embattled region...

Would it be possible to generate two or more focused 'beams' then use wave interference/harmonics that would converge on your target (like using GPS triangulation only in reverse) to create the unpleasantness in a more precise location?

Triangulation? Creating a focal point? Why not?

my thinking is that it would reduce or eliminate the 'spill over' from a low frequency source affecting your own troops, since none of the signals used in the triangulation would by itself have any impact... I'm reminded of a recent experiment in Japan that used the same sort of concept in a decidedly more peacful fashion...

The mind is the weapon of both lethal and non-lethal capability

.. more peaceful fashion eh.

how about the audio spotlight example? Same principle, ultrasound band, focused beam, step into the sound! You could target the enemy with the sound beam, they would hear a personal message.. the voice of God preaching PEACE!!!! Yahoo. Forget that bomb on your belly, GOD has spoken. Give over.

Well, it might work.

If not, the same design more or less exactly could be used to produce the barf waves below 18 hz. Or heck, play em a few rounds of opera till they beg you to stop....

Could this be Transcendian's "ray thingy?" How tricky would it be to nail your target and keep em - you have to be able to follow with the spotlight pretty quick or they might get away out of it....

One as to look at the efficiency in resource allocations for both sides of the conflict.

1- Killing an opponent removes one enemy, injuring him badly is likely to take the resources of two or three people on the enemy side to take care of him and transport him to safety. That might be a delayed reaction that come after the main battle but it is still a burden to the enemy.

2-Taking prisoners is a burden for your side, it will take many of your own soldiers and transport resources to take care of them. Unless you can extract valuable info from them or an ransom, it is a cost that rogue armies will not take. They prefer option #1.

While #2 is politically correct, #1 is more effective in a battle strategy.

You have to make a choice, do you want to win or look good?

So far, as I suspected we, meaning the US and Nato forces do not seem to have in the arsenal competitive non lethal weapons.

I believe it is a legitimate engineering and scientific problem to solve, especially in light of dual demands of soldiering and policing put upon modern Armed Forces.

The role of the police is to keep the peace.

The role of the army is to kill the enemy.

The role of weapons in armed conflicts is much drawn down to small arms.

The psychological impact of a particular weapon in some cases is just as important as "stopping power".

In Afghanistan in particular, if not in Iraq as well there may well be a psychological impact derived from a weapon that could go up against AK 47s or even an HK as some adversaries seem to have gotten their hands on.

I am not fully an expert on the culture of Taliban, or Al Quada, but to be able to take prisoners instead of kill offensively, may well be psychologically powerful, plus demonstrate a technical superiority nearly unimaginable.

To be able to say to these adversaries, you will not wake up in heaven, but in our hands as prisoners for as long as we deem fit, would would be an interesting power to be able to wield, as well as challenge what I know of a cultural ethos at work in the motivations and world view of the adversaries we have been forced to deal with.

Of course the ideal weapon would have either lethal or non lethal capability at ranges typical for current rifles.

Useful tools when momentarily used for self protection have turned out to be weapons. So manhood had developed the weapon culture for survival. In spite of the tremendous technological progresses coming out, we are yet to get rid of these endless arms race.

If it could be a social control force ,we can generalise a single peace keeping force[ either police or army] and make positive use internationally.

Education and global good will should keep away destructive arms race. Is it?

If we can not change what is in the hearts and minds of of our enemy with the threat of death, why should we think a temporary immobilization or "as good as dead" (whatever that is) would be any more effective? The "education & economic development approach" is theoretically possible but economically and logistically impractical. We can not effectively "stimulate" our own economy let alone another country's. The biggest challenge - changing what is in our own hearts and minds!

Sound as a weapon ! The US Military demonstrated their sound wave weapon some time ago. The 60 Minutes TV program did an article on it one night.

California recently had Student Demonstrations agains tuition increases. The TV news showed that the LA police had a , "Sound Weapon," to control the crowd. No results shown.

Somoli Pirates recently attacked again, the ship they once captured and for which some of them were killed. The ship this time had a defense force that had weapons, including a SOUND DEFENSE SYSTEM. Apparently, this time the pirates were repelled by conventional weapons after failing to repel them with the Sound system.

Soldiers today are asked to be both soldiers, and peace officers.

That's the problem, 'peace keeping' and 'combat' are incompatible activities. There is a lot of training that overlaps between them but their goals, priorities and environments are completely different.

Train soldiers for combat and don't ask them to be peace-keepers.

Train peace keepers to keep the peace and don't ask them go into combat.

Problem solved... well, not really, but I hope you get my point. It's like anything else, you can specialize or you can generalize. If you specialize it will cost more but the job will more likely get done right; if you generalize it will likely cost less, until you have to do the job again because it didn't get done right the first time.

So far I have not succeeded in causing the revival of the US Constabulary Service.

I'd never heard of them before... having done a very rudimentary search, I am inclined to say that this is exactly what we need! Imagine, a body of men doing a specific task with training and procedures aligned with that task... ahhh... nothing like good job training to get a job well done...

Considering that no one wants to have someone elses infantry wandering their streets fully armed and trained to kill (lord knows I wouldn't put up with it for long!) and the fact that the military and politicians are not prepared to kick over the proverbial garbage can and go home (good for them) and the fact that we have kicked over several of theses garbage cans around the globe... it makes sense to have military units specifically trained and dedicated to performing traditional peace keeper roles (not this new fangled 'it's not a war it's a police action' BS definition).

Thanks for bringing this concept to my attention, you may yet revive the USCS

Use the concept of a "party popper" replace the streamers with dental floss. Cause a floss loaded projectile to engulf a combatant in a web of floss. We could use flossy mortar rounds too.

Use mint flavored floss... combat troops are usually stinky and this will make taking prisoners much more pleasant...

(Insert 'peeing myself from laughter' emoticon)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Funniest_Joke_in_the_World

no one has mentioned this option; but then it is mostly fatal

Well, I'll just use my 12GA Benelli, and aim for a non kill shot... maybe take off a leg or two, and an arm If I must. Thats non lethal, and I guarantee I get the job done.

There could be: an ultrasound stunner. Some research was done in the seventies on this subject but I have not seen anything since.

Dragon

Kittens!
If you release sufficient kittens the enemy will be overwhelmed by the cuteness and stop fighting.

Failing that, you could just make lightweight field deployable meeting rooms and call quality management meetings, as the enemy entered the room, they would rapidly fall asleep or become placid, docile, or possibly lose the will to live.

In the event of a kitten shortage you could use Squirrels...
Del

At one time before my divorce I proposed a Clown Corp that traveled by aimless hot air balloon.

They were to bomb with flowers and candy.

After my divorce I determined this was unrealistic for the Clowns would be killed, which would be counter productive emotionally for the nation or institution that sponsored their clownish assault.

Squirrels are unreliable.

They may be of some use as food, and they are suicidal in my experience.

I am interested in superior interior design for meeting rooms.

I suspect that the size of the meeting room in cubic feet ought not go beyond the size of a tent.

We could experiment with Tents as places to have meetings, and see which tents produced the best decisions, or any decision at all.

I suspect that the Circus Tent is for entertainment only, as it is too big for anything else.

I am beginning to wonder if the solution is not in the weapon, but in the cartridge.

Possibly it would be possible to make a cartridge for the M16 or other Nato Standard small arms effective at ranges of 300 yards.

Really there may be no particular utility for a cartridge that is "non lethal" in a battlefield situation over such a distance, since some of the justification is the facilitation of the taking of prisoners.

The simple option for the soldier policeman of being able to load lethal or non lethal rounds into one standard weapon widens the options and puts the soldier officer in individual control of the type of power to employ.

Even non-lethal weapons like stun guns and rubber bullets can kill if the person being "put down" has certain medical conditions, like a bad heart. I don't think a non-lethal device could ever be built that would be 100% safe. At one time there was talk of a gas that would cause the enemy to lose his desire to fight. It was some sort of mind altering gas that would render the person as harmless as a puppy dog. I think it was science fiction at the time. The person would drop his weapon and go skipping off to gather flowers. He would lose all thoughts of animosity towards his enemy.